From Classical Quarterly 45 (1995), 583-88 MICHAEL HENDRY Rouge and Crocodile Dung Notes on Ovid, Ars 3.199f and 269f In Ars Amatoria 3.267-72, part of a longer sequence which begins in 261, Ovid ad- vises his female readers on how to conceal various physical shortcomings. Text and ap- paratus are quoted from Kenney’s revised OCT:1 quae nimium gracilis, pleno uelamina filo sumat, et ex umeris laxus amictus eat; pallida purpureis tangat sua corpora uirgis, nigrior ad Pharii confuge piscis opem; 270 pes malus in niuea semper celetur aluta, arida nec uinclis crura resolue suis; . 269 tangat RYAw : tingat j : cingat a : pingat Watt : spargat Merkel 272 suis j : tuis RYAw The second couplet quoted contains, besides the textual problem in the hexameter, two interpretive cruces, one for each line. It appears that Kenney has become more worried about the first and less about the second in the 29 years that separate his editions, since his revised apparatus makes room for Watt and Merkel (and the reports of Y) by omitting his earlier remark on the pentameter: 270 piscis codd., sensu incertissimo : (Phariae . .) uestis Blümner Although I see serious difficulties in both lines, we may as well begin with the less con- spicuous problem in the pentameter. As Brandt puts it, ‘was unter dem pharischen . Fisch zu verstehen wäre, lässt sich nicht sicher sagen’, a fact which Kenney’s note puts in two words. Two solutions have so far been proposed, neither of them particularly con- vincing: we may either take Pharii piscis as a very odd and obscure reference to the crocodile or emend to Phariae uestis (Blümner).2 It is well-known that the ancients used crocodile dung as a cosmetic skin-lightener,3 and that would certainly be an appropriate 1 E. J. Kenney (ed.), P. Ovidi Nasonis Amores, Medicamina Faciei Femineae, Ars Amatoria, Remedia Amoris (Oxford, 19942). References to ‘Brandt’ are to P. Brandt (ed.), P. Ovidi Nasonis de arte ama- toria libri tres (Leipzig, 1902, reprinted Hildesheim, 1991), and are ad loc. unless otherwise specified. 2 We will see that each of these possibilities is half right: the reference is indeed to the crocodile, but the text should probably be emended (though not to uestis), since a crocodile is not a fish. 3 Brandt (Anhang, 237-38) refers to “das Krokodil . ., das allerdings in der Kosmetik eine ebenso wenig appetitliche, wie nicht unwichtige Rolle spielte”. As sources, he quotes Pliny (N.H. 28.108), Clement of Page 1 of 7 http://www.curculio.org/pubs/ovid4.pdf From Classical Quarterly 45 (1995), 583-88 MICHAEL HENDRY treatment for a dark complexion, but the problem remains: can a crocodile be referred to as if it were a fish? It seems highly unlikely to me, though others may differ: more on this point below. Blümner’s Phariae . uestis redirects the reference to Egyptian (= white) clothing. One small but distinct advantage of this change is that it makes both lines refer to sartorial rather than cosmetic remedies, as do the preceding and following couplets. On the other hand, it seems a rather unlikely error: who ever would have thought of introducing a fish into this context? It’s not as if uestis were particularly rare, or piscis appreciably more frequent. A more important, and in my view insuperable, objection applies both to Blümner’s text of 270 and to the transmitted text of 269: the advice given will not work. Wearing purple or scarlet stripes will not make a pale woman look any less pale, nor will white clothing make a dark woman appear less dark: rather the reverse in each case, since the contrasting shades will tend to emphasize each other. The apparently parallel passage a little earlier (3.189-92) is in fact quite different, what we might call a perpendicular passage: pulla decent niueas: Briseida pulla decebant; cum rapta est, pulla tum quoque ueste fuit. 190 alba decent fuscas: albis, Cephei, placebas; sic tibi uestitae pressa Seriphos erat. That is good advice for women who are pale or dark and wish to look more and strikingly so, not for those who wish to look less pale or dark than nature has made them. Other peculiarities of the text of 269 suggest that it is corrupt and originally contained a reference to rouge, which is just what Ovid’s pallida would have needed and used. If such a sense could be read into the line or imported into it by conjecture, we would have an entire couplet of cosmetic remedies — assuming for the moment that Alexandria (Paed. 3.2.7.3), and Horace (Epod. 12.11, stercore fucatus crocodili). Galen’s chapter Περὶ κόπρου τῶν ξερσαίων κροκοδείλων καὶ ψάρων is more detailed than any of these: Τὴν δὲ τῶν χερσαίων κροκοδείλων τούτων τῶν µικρῶν τε καὶ χαµαιρεπῶν κόπρον ἔντιµον αἱ τρυφῶσαι πεποιήκασι γυναῖκες αἷς οὐκ ἀρκέσει τοῖς ἄλλοις φαρµάκοις τοσούτοις οὖσιν λαµπρόν τε καὶ τετανὸν ἐργάσασθαι τὸ περὶ τὸ προσωπὸν δέρµα προστιθέασι δ’ αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν τῶν κροκοδείλων κόπρον (De simplicium medicamen- torum temperamentis ac facultatibus 10.29 = 12.307.8-308.6 Kühn). I owe this reference to Poliziano’s Miscellaneorum Centuria Secunda (ed. V. Branca, M. Pastore Stocchi, Florence, 1978), in which chapter 37, ‘Crocodilus’, is essentially a cosmetological commentary on A.A. 3.270: he does not consider the question whether a crocodile can be referred to as a fish. Poliziano wonders whether Ovid knew that the crocodile from which cosmetics were procured was not the crocodile κατ’ ἐξοχήν: I would say that if he did, he did not care. Page 2 of 7 http://www.curculio.org/pubs/ovid4.pdf From Classical Quarterly 45 (1995), 583-88 MICHAEL HENDRY crocodile dung is indeed the subject of the pentameter. In 197-200, Ovid mentions rouge along with chalk as beauty-aids every woman already knows: quid, si praecipiam ne fuscet inertia dentes oraque suscepta mane lauentur aqua? scitis et inducta candorem quaerere creta; sanguine quae uero non rubet, arte rubet. 200 I suspect that inducta in 199 should be emended to indoctae: “you know even without being taught”. This makes better sense of the et and fits particularly well in this context, where it continues from Ovid’s reminder that there are things his readers need not be told (193-6) and anticipates the plug for his Medicamina Faciei Femineae (205-8). Turning back to line 269, the adjective purpureis, which can of course mean “scarlet” or “pink” as well as “purple”, is far more appropriate for rouge than for dark clothing,4 while the verb, whether tangat or tingat, much better describes the application of cosmetics than the wearing of clothes.5 The rest of the line is more problematic. Though difficult, it might just be possible to defend uirgis as a reference to patches of rouge on each cheek. On the other hand, we would expect round spots rather than oblong patches or stripes, though uirgis might just do, if we think of the rouge as being applied primarily horizontally, along the line of the cheekbones. However, it seems better to suppose that these uirgae are not the result of the application of rouge but the instrument used to apply it. The editor has suggested that ancient rouge may have come in solid sticks, rather like modern lipstick and applied in much the same way, and we might also imagine that a small wooden stick or brush would have been used to apply rouge from a jar, so as to keep the fingers clean. Either of these ideas would need a parallel to be totally convincing, but they are certainly far more plausible than the alternatives. This leaves only corpora to explain or emend. Since modern women generally apply rouge to their cheeks, it looks as if we would have to emend corpora to some word meaning 4 The clothing in the perpendicular passage is pulla, which would be considerably darker. Ovid uses pur- pureus pudor to allude to a blush in Am. 1.3.14, and we would expect rouge to produce roughly the same shade. 5 The meaning “touch (with a substance) so as to leave a trace, film, or sim.” (OLD s.v. tangere 3.a) seems perfect for the application of most cosmetics, whether powder, liquid, or paste. On the other hand, Propertius (quoted just below) uses tingere, and Ovid may well be imitating him here. (The other Page 3 of 7 http://www.curculio.org/pubs/ovid4.pdf From Classical Quarterly 45 (1995), 583-88 MICHAEL HENDRY ‘cheeks’ or ‘cheekbones’, and I have been unable to find any word of the appropriate meaning and metrical shape. However, although it might seem that the pale woman’s tempora are too high, as her pectora are surely too low, there is some ancient evidence for rouging of foreheads, and tempora may in fact be the word we want. In a satirical passage, Propertius writes (2.18.31-32): an si caeruleo quaedam sua tempora fuco tinxerit, idcirco caerula forma bona est? This is clear enough, but some doubt remains, since it might be objected that Propertius is intentionally mingling two ideas, British blue-dyed faces and German (or Roman) yellow- dyed hair, and using the former to make the latter more ridiculous. The word tempora would then be used not because Roman women applied cosmetics to their foreheads, but because the tempora are the part of the face closest to the hair.6 As we have seen, difficulties remain, and it is certainly possible that the truth is still to be found. I hope I have at least convinced the reader that my diagnosis is correct, that line 269 must refer to rouge rather than purple-striped clothing, and that, if some of the details of the solution proposed (the conjecture tempora and the understanding of uirgis as sticks of rouge) are found unconvincing, it is time to draw our daggers and obelize.7 However that may be, we are left with the problem of making the crocodile more at home in the pentameter.